Homosexual Marriage & Science

Please report broken hyperlinks using the Reply option at the bottom of each page.

–

[Also see ASND’s Children of Homosexual Couplespage for many more scientific references on the observed consequences and effects of homosexual marriage.]

–

“More than 80 non-governmental organizations and experts [from around the world] have endorsed a statement that describes alternatives to a husband-and-wife family, ‘particularly … same-sex unions’ as ‘socially destructive.’“

[Nobody Important wonders why the APAwould have made such glaringly anti-scientific errors.]

[Hmm…]

and…

“… [homosexual] male relationships are 50 percent more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages, while lesbian relationships are 167 percent more likely to break up than heterosexual marriages.“

&

“… [homosexual] parenting approximately triples or quadruples the rate of same-sex attraction. It may be technically true that ‘the vast majority of these children eventually grow up to be heterosexual,’ but only because if being raised by same-sex parents increases the occurrence of same-sex attraction from 2 percent to 8 percent, 92 percent are still heterosexual. But a fourfold increase is still a sizable effect statistically.“

&

“Declarations that homosexuality is ‘normal,’ ‘positive,’ and ‘legitimate’ would seem be the product of value judgments rather than objective science… how does science establish that such a grounding of human identity is ‘positive’… how did science become the arbiter of what is positive?“

[Or “legitimate?” Both of those terms are values-driven, not science-driven. The APA even stated as much…]

&

“In a moment of exceptional clarity, the task force put its finger on a core issue: Gay-affirming psychologies necessarily embody extrascientific moral and ethical deliberations that raise the potential of conflict with religious beliefs, precisely because the very act of giving priority to organismic congruence is a religious and ethical choice.”

“It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing, this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority.”

&

“… there are decisive principled as well as prudential reasons for the state to enshrine this understanding of marriage in its positive law, and to resist the call to recognize as marriages the sexual unions of same-sex partners.”